Fourth Committee Concludes Hearings from Petitioners, with Focus on Western Sahara, as Delegates Resume Debate
Petitioners made impassioned appeals for settling the Western Sahara question for a third and final day today, as the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) considered Morocco’s role and record in the territory.
Several petitioners welcomed the political reforms and social and economic development instituted by Morocco in Western Sahara. One petitioner said Saharan life had now become modern, and many had fled the Frente Polisario camps for Morocco in order to lead a “normal” life.
Morocco’s new Constitution outlined an initiative of “advanced regionalization”, aiming to achieve development in all regions of Morocco, including the Sahara region, said another petitioner.
Also on the question of Western Sahara, a petitioner said Morocco had presented a “politically credible and balanced solution”, which would garner the support of the international community.
At the same time, a number of speakers regretted Morocco’s role in the impasse. A Saharan student in the United States said that, although the conflict was easy to solve, leading countries in the Security Council were backing Morocco despite the obvious violations occurring in Western Sahara.
The Frente Polisario representative to the United Nations, calling Morocco’s occupation of Western Sahara “an affront to the international community”, said the decolonization of Western Sahara could not be deemed a replacement of a European colonizer by an African one. He urged the United Nations to take a clear stand on the matter.
Following the conclusion of hearings from petitioners, the Committee resumed discussions among delegates on decolonization issues, and with the focus remaining on Western Sahara, the representative of Botswana stressed the right of the people there to choose between independence and integration with Morocco, and be given the opportunity to do so through a referendum.
The representative of the United Kingdom told the Committee that his country’s relations with its Overseas Territories were based on partnership, shared values and self-determination, which brought mutual benefits and responsibilities.
The representative of Pakistan spoke on the unresolved Jammu and Kashmir dispute and said his country was willing to engage India in a comprehensive dialogue to find a peaceful resolution that would normalize relations.
The representative of Jordan, calling for an increase in visiting missions to Non-Self-Governing Territories, highlighted the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and the establishment of their independent, sovereign and viable State, on the basis of the pre-1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital.
The representatives of Indonesia, Peru, Burkina Faso, Togo, Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria and Cuba also made statements.
Speaking in exercise of the right of reply were representatives of India, United Kingdom, Pakistan, Morocco, Spain and Argentina.
The Committee will meet at 10 a.m. on Monday, 13 October, to continue its discussions on decolonization issues.
Background
The Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) met today to continue its consideration of all decolonization issues. It was expected to hear the remaining petitioners on the question of Western Sahara, and to continue its general debate. For further background, see Press Release GA/SPD/556 of 9 October.
Petitioners on the Question of Western Sahara
AHMED NAFAA, Association Citoyennete et development humain de Dakhla, said that, since the beginning of what he called an “artificial conflict” started by Algeria, Morocco had stretched out its hand for reconciliation. But, Algeria believed Morocco did that from a position of weakness. On the contrary, Morocco’s strength derived from the justness of its cause. Algeria continued to pursue “wrong-headed diplomacy” and used billions of dollars in oil revenues to buy off votes for its “insidious campaigns”. Algeria had no interest in self-determination in Western Sahara because it sought to encircle Morocco. A successful self-determination exercise, furthermore, might also encourage regions of Algeria to seek their rights. The problem was between Morocco and Algeria and would require direct negotiations.
SAADANI MAALAININ (OCAPROCE International) said that internationally agreed development goals would not be reached because the basic needs of women living in the Tindouf camps were not being met. Moreover, they were subjected to a “system of terror” by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Rio de Oro (Frente Polisario). Women in the camps faced numerous problems, which were exacerbated by the diversion by Frente Polisario of international food aid. She called for an end to the impunity of the Frente Polisario leaders and the implicit cooperation of other leaders in the conflict. The people of Tindouf had a right to a dignified future, she said, stressing that their suffering went on daily. Now was the time to end that travesty once and for all, she urged.
BRAHIM LAGHZAL, Counseil National de Droits de l’Homme, said he was a former political prisoner and human rights activist. He described recent institutional steps taken by Morocco in Western Sahara to protect and promote reform measures in such diverse areas as social and economic development and cultural preservation. In that way, Morocco had defended the rights and aspirations of everyone, including those harbouring separatist agendas, because of its commitment to the principles of openness and transparency.
FATIMA MAOULAININE, Association Locale d’Oued Eddahab, highlighted positive progress that had been achieved in Western Sahara since it was administered by Morocco. Thanks to legislation that encouraged economic development and entrepreneurship in the region, young people were flourishing, she said. Steps had also been taken to develop the region’s parliamentary system, as well as its infrastructure, including the construction of new hospitals and roads. Plans were under way to help train young people to enter the labour market, she stated, adding that the region enjoyed the lowest unemployment rate in Morocco. Further training was planned in order to equalize living standards.
MOULAY CHERIF MANNI, Coordination pour la Defense des Valeurs Sacrees, said that since 1975, the Government of Morocco had invested heavily in the development of Western Sahara in various sectors, resulting in marked improvements in its Human Development Indicators and other international measurements. The exploitation of natural resources, including phosphate mines, was guided by the principle of social development of the local people. Thus, these activities, contrary to the contention of critics, were within the framework of international law.
JEAN-LOUIS ROY, Partenariat International, said that the initiative to resolve the Western Sahara region with more autonomy responded to the basic principles of self-determination, adding that political, legal and social mechanisms to manage resources were crucial for governance of the region. The Moroccan initiative was supported by the new Moroccan Constitution, which, importantly, covered the rule of law. Following new reforms outlined in the Constitution, all indications were that the commitments undertaken by Morocco were trustworthy and that the Constitution represented real political will by the Government. Morocco’s initiative offered a path to a stable future that would bolster diversity and individual freedoms.
EL MAMI AHL AHMED BRAHIM, member of the Red Cross in Rabat, called for international pressure on Frente Polisaro to ensure that the refugees in the Tindouf camps could return to Morocco and contribute to national development. International humanitarian aid was being diverted in a design to prevent a settlement in the region, he added.
ADALBERTO C. AGOZONI said Morocco had shown political maturity by proposing autonomy, which was in accordance with the specificities of the region and enjoyed the support of the people. Western Sahara was never a “no-man’s land” and would always be a constitutive part of the Kingdom of Morocco. The politically credible and balanced solution would garner the support of the international community.
JUVENAL MARCELO URÍZAR ALFARO raised concerns related to the mining sector in Western Sahara. He disputed allegations that Morocco’s presence there was due exclusively to the presence of phosphates. Activity had always been undertaken legally in line with international law, he assured. With respect to the living conditions in Western Sahara, he noted that those were equal to many other capitals in Africa. Morocco had not abused the resources, as some had accused, but rather, it had used them to benefit the local people.
M’HAMED ABBA said that Frente Polisario maintained refugee camps because they were a source of income. Officials of Algeria and Frente Polisario had transformed the Tindouf camps into “super markets”, where they were selling goods diverted form humanitarian aid. On behalf of his family and the people in the camps, he called for an international investigation into the matter and asked that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the World Food Programme (WFP) control aid delivery. He also called on Algeria to agree a census in the camp.
PEDRO PINTO LEITE, International Platform of Jurists for East Timor and Stichting Zelfbeschikking West-Sahara, recalled the similarities between the questions of Palestine and Western Sahara: two illegal occupations, two walls of shame, violation of human and self-determination rights. “The abject structure”, a three-metre-high wall built by Morocco, was illegal. The International Court of Justice concluded that the walls built by both Israel and Morocco constituted a violation of international law. To justify the construction of the wall, Morocco had presented the argument of self-defence, but its purpose was the annexation of Western Sahara. The wall heavily impacted the Saharans separating families, and with economic, social, cultural and psychological implications. He asked the Committee to find a way to force Morocco to demolish the wall.
AHMED BOUKHARI, Frente Polisario representative to the United Nations, said Morocco’s occupation of Western Sahara represented “an affront to the international community” and must end forthwith. The African Union and the United Nations Secretary-General had both set the basis for a settlement, but Morocco had been engaged in obstructionism. The decolonization of Western Sahara could not be deemed a replacement of a European colonizer by an African one. The United Nations must take a clear stand on the matter, he said, adding that silence and patience amid injustice was an abdication of responsibility.
SALKA DAHI BACHIR said she was born and raised in the Saharan refugee camps where she grew up believing international law would solve the Western Sahara conflict. She maintained that the United Nations should not ignore the fact that the Moroccan occupation of the territory was illegal, that Morocco operated a police State and that the world Organization had failed to protect the basic human rights of the Saharans. Although the conflict was easy to solve, leading countries in the Security Council were backing Morocco despite the obvious violations occurring in Western Sahara. She believed the only solution to the conflict was to allow the Saharan people to exercise their rights through a free, fair and transparent referendum.
GÍSLI KR. BJÖRNSSON, Lagarök, drew attention to Morocco’s reform process, which, in 2011, had seen the adoption of a Constitution through a popular referendum. An initiative of “advanced regionalization” was outlined in that text, aiming to achieve development in all regions of Morocco, including the Sahara region. An environmentally sustainable and socially equitable growth model for that area had been proposed, which aimed to diversify local business and economic actors. Experiences in the Arctic had shown that autonomy was an adequate solution that could both enhance economic development and avoid the dismantling of existing States. Financial autonomy would be an important step towards consolidating effective management in the region.
YAHJABOU ESSALLAMI spoke emotionally of the untimely death of his brother along the border of Mauritania and Algeria. He pleaded with the United Nations, non-governmental organizations and the entire international community to bring back the rights of the Saharan people in honour of his late brother.
LAHCEN MAHRAOUI said that, as a Western Saharan, he was participating in the Committee’s session because the suffering and the conflict had lasted too long. He hoped to clarify the difference between Frente Polisario as a separatist movement, which claimed to be the sole representative of the Saharan people, and the Western Saharans themselves. Life for Saharans was not the same as it was in 1975, when many were pastoral or nomadic. Now, Saharan life was modern, and many had fled the Frente Polisario camps for Morocco in order to lead a “normal” life. Since 1975, Algeria had not allowed the international community to make a census of the population in the camps, making it impossible to provide adequate aid for the refugees.
Statements
NABEEL MUNIR (Pakistan), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement, said that the Special Committee on Decolonization remained the primary focal point for a comprehensive, system-wide effort of engaging the international community in pursuing the unfinished decolonization agenda. He noted that informal consultations with representatives of Non-Self-Governing Territories, as well as the good offices of the Secretary General were highly appreciated. The sustained and balanced growth of those fragile economies, including increased development assistance, was critical, and innovative approaches were also needed to conclude the long-outstanding work.
He said decolonization could only be as effective as Members allowed it to be. Without political will from both the General Assembly and the Security Council, implementation of recommendations of the Special Committee and its decisions was not possible. A concerted effort was also required to ensure a uniform implementation of Security Council resolutions, he said, noting that selective implementation eroded the confidence of the international community and undermined the credibility of the United Nations system. On the unresolved Jammu and Kashmir dispute, Pakistan was willing to engage India in a comprehensive dialogue to find a peaceful resolution that would normalize relations.
DIANA E.S. SUTIKNO (Indonesia), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement, stressed that self-determination, as an inalienable right, must be applied consistent with the relevant international laws. She commended the significant progress made by the Decolonization Committee since its establishment in 1961, and in particular, that body’s enhanced cooperation and continuous engagement with the administering Powers in implementing its mandate. Despite that progress, however, decolonization remained unfinished business. There was a serious need to work towards expediting the process through good faith and cooperation among all parties concerned. It was also essential to ensure that the people of the Non-Self-Governing Territories had adequate access to information and education about their political status, to enable them to make an informed decision.
AUGUSTO THORNBERRY (Peru), associating with the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States and the Union of South American Nations, said that, although significant progress had been made in decolonization over the decades, the process was incomplete. As the United Nations advanced on the matter, two fundamental issues needed to come together: developing necessary political will and recognizing the specific circumstances of each territory. The Special Committee should be in direct dialogue with the parties concerned to develop specific road maps and to facilitate sustained growth in the Non-Self-Governing Territories. The case of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)* was special, which the United Nations had acknowledged. Peru constantly supported the legitimate rights of Argentina’s sovereignty and stressed the importance of a negotiated settlement. With that, he urged both parties to refrain from unilateral modifications.
CHARLES T. NTWAAGAE (Botswana), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, said he wished the issue of decolonization was no longer on the agenda, and reaffirmed his position in support for the right to self-determination for the people of Western Sahara. Saharans should have the right to choose between independence and integration with Morocco, and be given the opportunity to do so through a referendum. Welcoming the efforts of the Secretary-General to keep the concerned parties engaged in dialogue, he urged them to approach negotiations with tolerance and mutual respect towards reaching a lasting solution.
DER KOGDA (Burkina Faso), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement, reiterated his country’s solidarity with Non-Self-Governing Territories around the world who wished to exercise their right to self-determination. While the United Nations had played an important role in facilitating that process, its work remained unfinished as millions still lived in Non-Self-Governing territories.
That issue, he went on, required the collective effort and will of the international community. He drew attention to Western Sahara, where, despite numerous initiatives, the international community had reached an impasse. He praised the Secretary-General and the Special Envoy for their efforts to revitalize the negotiations, while voicing support for Morocco’s proposal, which provided a credible resolution.
KODJO MENAN (Togo) regretted that, despite years of effort, a settlement of the Western Sahara question remained elusive. All parties needed to transcend their maximalist positions and strike a compromise. Morocco’s proposal to grant autonomy to Western Sahara represented a fair balance between the expectations of both parties. Ending the conflict was critical to meeting the aspirations of the Saharan people and boosting peace, security and stability in the region. The dispute should be of major concern to the international community, he said, stressing the need for improved relations between Morocco and Algeria.
SONIA SUGHAYAR (Jordan) said that maintaining a colonial situation was incompatible with the United Nations Charter. Peoples under colonization and foreign occupation had the right to determine their future and sovereignty over their lands and resources. They also had the right to ensure that their political, economic and social interests were protected. It was, therefore, of great importance to reach a peaceful, just and lasting solution to all colonial and occupied territories to improve the future status of their peoples.
Dispatching United Nations visiting missions to Non-Self-Governing Territories was important and should be increased, she said. Those were an effective means to assess the real situation and assist in achieving the peoples’ aspirations. She welcomed positive developments with regard to Tokelau, Saint Helena, New Caledonia and the Cayman Islands, but said she would be remiss if she did not highlight the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and the establishment of their independent, sovereign and viable State, on the basis of the pre-1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. She urged the international community and the United Nations to work towards ending the occupation by Israel and called on the parties to resume negotiations on all final status issues, particularly Jerusalem, refugees, borders and security.
ANATOLIO NDONG MBA (Equatorial Guinea), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement, said dialogue was central to ensuring peace, security and sustainable development. The question of Western Sahara had witnessed the basis for a settlement and the momentum needed to be stepped up for a durable and successful resolution. The parties should support, in a decisive and pragmatic manner, the United Nations’ efforts and contribute to the economic development and human rights of the region. He welcomed the initiatives taken by Morocco, and called on the Decolonization Committee to approve all resolutions by consensus, thereby underscoring the international community’s resolve.
ANTHONY BOSAH (Nigeria) recalled that 53 years after the adoption of resolution 1514 (XV), 17 territories were still under the yoke of colonialism. Nigeria believed in the right of people to realize their political, economic and socio-cultural aspirations, and viewed colonialism in any form as a negation of human values. He urged negotiations to resume for a peaceful solution to the dispute in the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), and called for the exploration of all options to implement self-determination in all colonized territories or under the domination of administering Powers. Regarding Western Sahara, a referendum on self-determination for the Saharan people was one the most pressing task of the United Nations. He urged Morocco to continue negotiations to achieve a settlement.
OSCAR LEÓN GONZALEZ (Cuba), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, said that colonialism remained an outstanding issue on the international agenda. As long as people around the world lived under those conditions, the United Nations work in that area would remain incomplete.
He reaffirmed the inalienable right of the Puerto Rican people for self-determination and expressed the Community’s commitment to work within international law to achieve a situation whereby Latin America was free of colonialism. He called on the United States to “shoulder its responsibility” to further that process, with the aim of making Puerto Rico a sovereign country. The Puerto Rican people, he asserted, were not free — they remained under domination. He pointed out that the Non-Aligned Movement, which represented the majority of the United Nations membership, supported the independence of Puerto Rico.
Cuba also supported Argentina and its claims to the Malvinas Islands (Falklands), which he said, were an “inseparable part” of that country. He urged an end to that dispute in line with the relevant Security Council resolution, which called on both parties to not make any unilateral decisions that would alter the situation as they worked through the process recommended by the General Assembly. Any action designed to militarize the South Atlantic would escalate the conflict and create tensions that could derail the peace process, he warned.
MICHAEL TATHAM (United Kingdom) said that his country’s relations with its Overseas Territories were based on partnership, shared values and self-determination, which brought mutual benefits and responsibilities. The United Kingdom had been working closely with the Territories to achieve the objectives of a “white paper” issued in 2012. He urged all countries to respect the wishes of the people of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), who voted overwhelmingly in favour of remaining with the United Kingdom.
He said any decision to break the constitutional link that the United Kingdom shared with its Overseas Territories should be made on the basis of the people’s wishes. The United Nations should de-list Territories where such decisions had been made. The white paper also sought to strengthen good governance and the welfare of the people, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, he said, adding that the Territorial Governments were expected to maintain the United Kingdom’s high standards of governance, human rights and accountability. The United Kingdom looked forward to upcoming elections in some of its Overseas Territories and would respect the wishes of others who sought self-determination.
On Gibraltar, he said the United Kingdom would not enter into sovereignty negotiations with anyone against the wishes of the people of Gibraltar.
Right of Reply
The representative of India, speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said he regretted that Pakistan had brought up the issue of Jammu and Kashmir and rejected it as irrelevant to the work of the Committee. The people of Jammu and Kashmir had peacefully chosen their destiny in accordance with internationally recognized practices. He quoted the Indian Prime Minister’s address to the General Assembly last month wherein he had expressed a readiness for serious bilateral dialogue with Pakistan in peace and outside the shadow of terrorism. Pakistan must take its responsibility in the regard seriously, and raising irrelevant issues would not help.
The representative of the United Kingdom, responding to statements by the representatives of Peru and Cuba, said his Government had no doubts about the sovereignty of its Overseas Territories. The Falkland Islands (Malvinas) had no indigenous people and no one was evicted, he said. Claims of militarization were false and the United Kingdom had been maintaining a reduced defensive posture. The United Kingdom remained fully committed to defend the rights of the people of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), he said, adding that the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands would remain Overseas Territories.
Also speaking in exercise of the right of reply, the representative of Pakistan said his reference to Jammu and Kashmir was entirely relevant to the Committee’s work. The Decolonization Declaration stated that all subjugated people had the right to self-determination, and the people of Jammu and Kashmir had been denied that right for 60 years. Jammu and Kashmir was never an integral part of India and the United Nations asserted that its final disposition would be made through a plebiscite under United Nations’ auspices. No election by India could substitute for a free and fair United Nations plebiscite. Pakistan condemned terrorism and took a leading in fighting against it, he said, stressing that the rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir could not be subsumed under the label of terrorism.
The representative of Morocco, responding to assertions that his country was behind the impasse in Western Sahara, said the issue of a referendum had been overtaken by the imperative of a political settlement. While Morocco’s initiative for autonomy was deemed serious and credible by the international community, other parties remained set on their original positions. So, who was responsible for the impasse?
On the question of exploitation of natural resources, he said Morocco was intent on developing Western Sahara, which took into account the social and economic needs of the local population by harnessing resources there. No recognized international body had called Morocco’s exploration of natural resources illegal. On human rights, he said Morocco cooperated with international human rights organizations in a clear and transparent way, and its record was recognized internationally.
The representative of Spain reiterated his full support for the United Nations doctrine of self-determination, but added that the solution to Gibraltar was through dialogue between Spain and the United Kingdom, taking into account the legitimate interests of the people. The tensions to which the United Kingdom’s delegate referred were an outcome of actions of local and British Governments. Spain had attempted to make inspections in its waters in the least restrictive manner. It believed there were prospects for the future, he said, citing a meeting in Madrid today. A consensual decision could be within reach, he added.
The representative of Argentina, responding to the United Kingdom, said the Malvinas Islands (Falklands), South Georgia and Sandwich Islands were within Argentine sovereignty and were illegally occupied by United Kingdom. That was a sovereignty dispute, recognized by United Nations’ resolutions. The United Kingdom Government was obfuscating the events surrounding the 1983 conflict, which Argentina deemed an invasion. The dispute over sovereignty was outside the purview of the right to self-determination principle. The referendum in the Malvinas Islands (Falklands) was a unilateral exercise that was not recognized by international organizations, and the United Kingdom’s military presence in the region was a continuation of its imperialist policies. Argentina and other Governments rejected the white paper.
Taking the floor a second time, the representative of India described Pakistan’s position on Jammu and Kashmir as “untenable”.
The representative of Pakistan responded, in right of reply, by stressing that attacking an argument did not undermine its legality.
The representative of the United Kingdom, also taking the floor a second time, said that in the interest of time, he would reiterate his earlier interventions on Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), and stressed that his Government had not confusion regarding the sovereignty of its Overseas Territories.
The representative of Argentina said the referendum in the Malvinas Islands (Falklands) was not recognized by the international community and did not impact the sovereignty dispute between his country and the United Kingdom.
The representative of Spain again insisted that the United Kingdom should engage in negotiations with his country on resolving the dispute, in keeping with legitimate interests of the people of Gibraltar.
* A dispute exists between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).